Former Trump Appointee Argues for Presidential Authority in IG Firings, Amidst Legal Challenge

A legal battle is brewing over President Donald Trump’s dismissal of several inspectors general (IGs) early in what the article incorrectly states as his second term, a move that sparked immediate controversy and legal challenges. Adding a surprising twist to the saga, Eric Soskin, a former IG for the U.S. Department of Transportation who was himself terminated by Trump, has filed a legal brief supporting the president’s authority to remove these watchdogs.

Soskin’s stance places him at odds with eight of his former IG colleagues, who have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn their terminations and reinstate them to their positions. These plaintiffs argue that Trump’s actions were illegal and exceeded the bounds of presidential power.

According to Jeff Beelaert, an attorney representing Soskin and a former Department of Justice official, Soskin felt compelled to voice his disagreement with the lawsuit’s rationale. Beelaert explained that Soskin wanted to make it clear that he believes Trump acted within his constitutional authority.

The mass removal of IGs from 17 government agencies triggered widespread criticism and raised questions about the legality of the decisions. These watchdogs serve as independent monitors, tasked with detecting and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse within federal agencies. Their independence is considered vital for government oversight and accountability.

The lawsuit filed by the ousted IGs seeks to have their firings declared illegal and to be restored to their former positions. Legal experts suggest that their chances of success are slim. A hearing is scheduled in D.C. court and their attempt to reinstate is likely to fail. Soskin’s opposition further weakens their case, as he has actively taken a position supporting the administration’s actions.

Beelaert, who helped author the amicus brief on Soskin’s behalf, argues that Trump’s personnel decisions are justified under Article II of the Constitution, relevant Supreme Court precedent, and updates to federal policy.

The brief challenges the plaintiffs’ reliance on the 1930s Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor, which provides some protection against agency firings and mandates a 30-day notice period for personnel changes. Soskin’s legal team asserts that Humphrey’s Executor is not applicable in this case, as it pertains specifically to members of "multi-member, expert, balanced commissions" that primarily report to Congress. The IGs, they contend, do not fit this description.

Beelaert further argued that recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly curtailed Congress’s ability to restrict the president’s removal authority. He suggests that the plaintiffs’ legal argument is based on outdated legal precedent.

Another point of contention is whether Trump complied with the procedural requirements for removing the IGs. Critics have pointed out that Trump did not provide Congress with the previously mandated 30-day notice before terminating the government watchdogs.

However, Trump supporters contend that the law has changed, and the 30-day notice is no longer required. They cite the 2022 amendments to the Inspector General Act of 1978. Before the amendment, the law required the president to communicate any "reasons" for terminations to Congress 30 days in advance. The updated law only requires a "substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons" for terminations.

The White House Director of Presidential Personnel has maintained that the firings were in line with the updated requirement and reflect "changing priorities" within the administration.

Some members of Congress, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, have expressed a desire for more information regarding the reasons for the firings, despite declining to elaborate further on the matter recently.

The plaintiffs challenging the firings face an uphill battle in court. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who is presiding over the case, has already expressed skepticism about their claims.

Judge Reyes previously denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, citing their failure to demonstrate "irreparable" and immediate harm as a result of the actions. She also indicated that she is unlikely to rule in their favor at the preliminary injunction hearing.

Beelaert emphasized the importance of elections and the need for presidents to have the authority to choose their own personnel, particularly at the beginning of their administrations.

"At the end of the day, this drives home the idea that elections matter," Beelaert said. "And of all the times that the president should have the removal of authority, it’s the start of the administration that should be most important."

He further argued that this principle should apply regardless of which party controls the White House. "It doesn’t matter who serves in the White House. I think that any president, whether it’s President Trump, President Biden — it doesn’t matter," Beelaert said. "The president should be allowed to pick who is going to serve in his administration. And to me, that’s a bit lost in this debate."

Soskin’s decision to support Trump’s actions, despite being one of the fired IGs, adds a layer of complexity to the legal challenge. His argument that the president has broad authority to remove appointees could bolster the administration’s defense and potentially influence the court’s decision. The case raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and the role of independent watchdogs in ensuring government accountability.